Sorry for the relayed reply.
Replacing the one "in" by "as" doesn't sound correct. Doesn't need the
medium "in_air" be located in the end of the standard name?
Maybe the suggestion
? mass_concentration_of_particulate_ammonium_in_air
isn't that bad at all. We can extend it by pm10 as follows:
? mass_concentration_of_particulate_ammonium_in_pm10_in_air
In this extension we have, again, the ambiguity -- but at least not in
the non-extended version.
Or it would be resolved via
? mass_concentration_of_pm10_ammonium_in_air
What do you think?
Cheers, Daniel
On 08.01.2018 17:57, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Daniel and Markus
>
> I agree that "aerosol" and "in air" is tautological, but I think it helps
> recognition of the name to include "aerosol". We use that in many names. The
> problem is the ambiguity arising from the two "in"s! We could rearrange these
> names to follow a new pattern
> mass_concentration_in_air_of_ammonium_in_dry_aerosol_particles
> The second "in" could perhaps be "as" in this constriction. What do you think?
>
> Cheer
>
> Jonathan
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de> -----
>
>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:41:44 +0100
>> From: Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de>
>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Clarifying standard names for
>> 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
>> Thunderbird/52.5.0
>>
>> Dear Markus and Jonathan,
>>
>> I fully agree with Markus with respect to having a structure that is
>> expandable by "pm10" or similar size descriptors.
>>
>> I would rather drop "aerosol" and keep "in_air". The reason is that
>> we define the concentration of "ammonium in dry particles" (mass) in
>> "air" (per volume). This is also suggested by http://cfconventions.org/Data/cf-standard-names/docs/guidelines.html#medium
>>
>> Using "mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_dry_aerosol_particles"
>> might be miss-interpreted as the concentration of "ammonium" in "dry
>> aerosol_particles" (per volume or per mass) - and not in air.
>>
>>
>> I also see that
>>
>> ? mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_dry_particles_in_air
>>
>> is not ambiguous because it might mean
>>
>> ? concentration of "ammonium in dry particles" in "air".
>>
>> or
>>
>> ? concentration of "ammonium" in "dry particles in per".
>>
>>
>> However,
>>
>> ? mass_concentration_of_particulate_ammonium_in_air
>>
>> is lacking the expandability by "pm10" (or whatever).
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05.01.2018 09:53, Markus Fiebig wrote:
>>> Dear Jonathan and Daniel,
>>>
>>> just to make an attempt to throw in my 5 cents here:
>>>
>>> By definition, the term "aerosol" already means the system of the particles
>>> together with their carrier gas which, in this context of the atmosphere, is
>>> air. Thus, "aerosol_particles_in_air" includes the air twice. We may consider
>>> simply to omit the "in_air", and would end up with:
>>>
>>> mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_dry_aerosol_particles
>>>
>>> That way, we'd make clear that only the particle phase is meant, but leave the
>>> option open for further additions such as "pm10", e.g.
>>> mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_pm10_dry_aerosol_particles.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Markus
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 04.01.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Jonathan Gregory:
>>>> Dear Daniel
>>>>
>>>> I see. So the new names would be of the form
>>>> mass_concentration_of_ammonium_in_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
>>>> I think that might be liable to misunderstanding. It could mean the mass
>>>> concentration of the ammonium within the aerosol particles, rather than
>>>> within the air. Your earlier suggestion
>>>> mass_concentration_of_particulate_ammonium_in_air
>>>> does not have that drawback.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de> -----
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:46:55 +0100
>>>>> From: Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de>
>>>>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Fwd: Re: Clarifying standard names for
>>>>> 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
>>>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
>>>>> Thunderbird/52.5.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jonathan,
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. If experts are unanimous in their conviction that the existing names will
>>>>>> never be needed for the meaning that they appear to have, I agree that they
>>>>>> should become aliases of the new names, which convey the correct meaning.
>>>>>> I'm sure this change could be made.
>>>>> Great.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alison Pamment is in charge of the updates
>>>>>> as you know and I expect she will consider as it soon as she has time. I think
>>>>>> that a complete list of the new and old names would be useful - that may
>>>>>> already be in one of your emails, perhaps.
>>>>> I didn't include a full list yet. I will create one and send it
>>>>> around the next days.
>>>>>
>>>>> After reading one of the past mailing list posts again and talking
>>>>> to a former colleague: it might be better to just include an "_in_"
>>>>> between "X" and "dry_aerosol_particles" in the new names (and maybe
>>>>> remove aerosol) instead of creating names like
>>>>> "...particulate_X_in_air". This first version with "_in_" is better
>>>>> expandable, when particle size fractions like PM10 should be
>>>>> considered in future (like
>>>>> "..._X_in_PM10_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air").
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you very much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes and thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:07:45 +0100
>>>>>>> From: Daniel Neumann <daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de>
>>>>>>> To: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Clarifying standard names for
>>>>>>> 'mass_concentration_of_*_dry_aerosol_particles'
>>>>>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
>>>>>>> Thunderbird/52.5.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Jonathan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand. That's tricky, [...]
>>>>>>> Yes :-) .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could define apple to mean orange in
>>>>>>>> future, for the sake of the existing datasets,
>>>>>>>> but only if we are certain that no-one will
>>>>>>>> ever want to talk about apples.
>>>>>>> I am not aware of any situation in which someone actually meant to
>>>>>>> talk about apples. Markus Fiebig from the World Data Centre for
>>>>>>> Aerosols wrote the same
>>>>>>> (http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/2017/059588.html).
>>>>>>> I talked to two former colleagues, who confirmed it as well.
>>>>>>> Therefore, it is quite save to assume that nobody talks about
>>>>>>> apples.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could just define and start using the new names,
>>>>>>>> and be aware that the CMIP5 datasets used the
>>>>>>>> wrong names (because the CF process somehow
>>>>>>>> made a mistake), without defining aliases. Would
>>>>>>>> that be acceptable?
>>>>>>> With respect to my personal usage of the respective standard names I
>>>>>>> am fine with just defining new standard names. I also see that it is
>>>>>>> the simplest solution for the moment considering the work effort
>>>>>>> needed to additionally define aliases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, we might run into trouble (and cause confusion), if both
>>>>>>> standard names - apple and orange - are used to describe oranges.
>>>>>>> People, who used "apple" in the past, probably keep using "apple" to
>>>>>>> describe oranges because they are not aware of the changes. People
>>>>>>> who look up standard names for their new data sets might also end up
>>>>>>> with "apple" for describing an orange if "apple" is not marked as
>>>>>>> deprecated. Also people comparing data sets following the old and
>>>>>>> the new conventions (e.g. CMIP5 and CMIP6) might not be aware of
>>>>>>> this discussion. Hence, I would prefer to define aliases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would it be feasible with respect to the required work, to define
>>>>>>> aliases for all the ambiguous standard names? How could I support
>>>>>>> this process? There seem to be 100 to 110 standard names involved:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles (15)
>>>>>>> - tendency_of_atmosphere_mass_content_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles*
>>>>>>> (78, maybe less)
>>>>>>> - mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air (15)
>>>>>>> - tendency_of_mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air (1)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03.01.2018 14:40, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear Daniel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it feasible to rename all affected standard names?
>>>>>>>>>> It would be feasible (using aliases) but is it necessary? It seems to me that
>>>>>>>>>> your question has identified that there should be a distinction between e.g.
>>>>>>>>>> mass_concentration_of_particulate_X_in_air
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> mass_concentration_of_X_dry_aerosol_particles_in_air
>>>>>>>>>> for X=ammonium etc. These are different quantities: the former refers to the
>>>>>>>>>> mass of ammonium only, the latter to the dry mass of the aerosol of that type.
>>>>>>>>>> That is, we need new names for CMIP6, not aliases.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, there should be a distinction between both standard names.
>>>>>>>>> However, the latter name has been used as synonym for the first name
>>>>>>>>> up till now (e.g. in CMIP5 or in a data set I published recently).
>>>>>>>>> Additionally, the latter name has no real application - at least I
>>>>>>>>> am not aware of an application (neither for model nor for
>>>>>>>>> measurement data). Therefore, it might be reasonable for backward
>>>>>>>>> compatibility to use aliases.
>>>>>>>> I understand. That's tricky, because we've established that the second name
>>>>>>>> is a valid concept but not correct. When we use aliases, it's because we've
>>>>>>>> decided on a clearer, more consistent or more precise formulation of the
>>>>>>>> name, but in this case, it seemed that we called something an apple when
>>>>>>>> it ought to have been called an orange. We could define apple to mean orange
>>>>>>>> in future, for the sake of the existing datasets, but only if we are certain
>>>>>>>> that no-one will ever want to talk about apples.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could just define and start using the new names, and be aware that the
>>>>>>>> CMIP5 datasets used the wrong names (because the CF process somehow made a
>>>>>>>> mistake), without defining aliases. Would that be acceptable?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>>>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>>> --
>>> Dr. Markus Fiebig
>>> Senior Scientist
>>> Dept. Atmospheric and Climate Research (ATMOS)
>>> Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU)
>>> P.O. Box 100
>>> N-2027 Kjeller
>>> Norway
>>>
>>> Tel.: +47 6389-8235
>>> Fax : +47 6389-8050
>>> e-mail: Markus.Fiebig at nilu.no
>>> skype: markus.fiebig
>>>
>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this email and attachments
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>> --
>> Daniel Neumann
>>
>> Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemuende
>> Physical Oceanography and Instrumentation
>> Seestrasse 15
>> 18119 Rostock
>> Germany
>>
>> phone: +49-381-5197-287
>> fax: +49-381-5197-114 or 440
>> e-mail: daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CF-metadata mailing list
>> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
--
Daniel Neumann
Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemuende
Physical Oceanography and Instrumentation
Seestrasse 15
18119 Rostock
Germany
phone: +49-381-5197-287
fax: +49-381-5197-114 or 440
e-mail: daniel.neumann at io-warnemuende.de
Received on Tue Jan 16 2018 - 10:23:18 GMT
